Welcome to /liberty/, your board for the discussion of politics, society, news, and the human condition without authoritarianism (fascism, full-on communism, etc). The board's philosophy is simple - welcome all discussion from non-authoritarian viewpoints, light moderation, and most importantly of all fun.

We've seen SJWs, we've seen the far right, and we've seen the far left and we've said no, stop this madness - the moralizing authoritarians who seek to control society and shape it to their whims and test out their vague theories would enslave us just to feel that society was better. At /liberty/ we believe we would be best served by sticking to the path we've been on for so long, that of personal liberty.

WELCOME

See the image - if you make the cut, you'll be right at home on /liberty/. Even if you are an authoritarian (far left or far right), you're welcome to join us - just don't expect to be taken seriously.

Rules

1. Global Rules uber alles.

2. Spamming can result in a short ban. In the event of raids, discussion threads will be stickied to weather the storm.

3. Rules are lame, don't make me make more and don't whine for more moderation unless it is absolutely necessary.

4. This board has an actual topic and it's not fetish porn. Content that is clearly beyond the pale of the board's topic (fetish porn, clop, gore, etc) will be removed. If you need these things, they are a mere three clicks away; you can even get there one-handed.

Board Policy Vis-a-vis…

1. "Shitposting"

There is no such thing as shitposting. It's a vague and subjective concept that boils down to "irreverent posts or things I don't like," and therefore makes a bad yardstick for moderation. If you want discussion without fun, may I suggest another board?

Help to compile a list of resources (preferably free) about non-authoritarian political thought. If you want to see something added, make a thread to discuss adding things to this list and I'll edit it in here if it's good.

Our list so far:Please note that inclusion on this list is not an endorsement of a work. What you do with this information is your choice.

Organizations of InterestInclusion on the list is not endorsement. Organizations are listed in no particular order.

The Fire - Foundation for Individual Rights in EducationThese people are your friends - they fight for freedom! FIRE is a non-partisan individual rights advocacy group that seeks to defend freedom of speech, legal equality, due process, religious liberty, and sanctity of conscience on American college and university campuses.Website: http://www.thefire.org/YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/TheFIREorg

In order to provide for the minimum necessities, such as a police force, court system, and a defensive military; what is the fairest form of taxation? A sales tax, income tax, property tax, tariffs, all of the above, or some other option?

Is there any way it would be possible to fund this minimal government voluntarily? Donations could lead to corruption, and other things like lotteries probably won't be enough. What do other libertarians think about this?

P.S. I know AnCap obviously doesn't have this problem, but I'm asking specifically about a hypothetical minarchist government.

They were fighting for the union because they needed the south as a captive market and a source of revenue. Without tariff revenue, the northern state governments couldn't build up their cronyist, rent seeking economy.

The article you link literally uses the Cuckfederate Constitution to prove that the secession effort was explicitly an effort to preserve and protect slavery head and shoulders above any excuse about states' rights, tariffs, government spending, etc.

Posting this on /liberty/, because this has doubled my desire for a private court system.

> A Georgia jury has awarded an eye-popping $1 billion verdict against a security company after an apartment complex guard was convicted of raping a 14-year-old girl.

>Zachary, who was 22 at the time of the rape, should never have been hired because he wasn't licensed to be an armed guard, Stewart said.

>The judge had already determined the security company was liable, so the jury was only determining damages, Stewart said. After reading the verdict, Stewart said, jurors immediately left the jury box — without waiting for the judge's permission — to hug Cheston and her mother.

>Verdicts in the tens of millions of dollars, or even hundreds of millions, are not uncommon, Jeff Dion, director of the National Crime Victim Bar Association said in an email. But he's never heard of a $1 billion verdict in a case with a single victim.

1 billion dollars. Think about that for a second, 1 BILLION dollars. That's the price of heart bypass surgery for 8500 people. A group of ~10 US adults deemed competent enough to perform as jurors sat down, listened to the case, and said "Yeah, a billion sounds right." Even if this is successfully appealed, and the amount is dropped to "just" 10% of its current value, that's still an absurdly high amount of money.

I'm not trying to make light of rape, but the moral hazards here far outweigh the potential benefits. In the US, if you had one million dollars, you would never have to work again in your life. So very clearly, the magnitude of the award has nothing to do with the woman's well-beingPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

Vague, generic, I bet you don't try to do half the things I listed. If you are, congratulations, you are on the right track, now stay on it and don't be distracted by looking for shortcuts.

Also, it's vague and generic because it's supposed to apply to a multitude of cases. I could've told you the right protein intake for building muscle or the right books to read if you're interested in learning about the history of warfare since the Thirty Years War, but that would be a waste of time if you're not interested in bodybuilding or history.

>There's no point in discussing anything anymore.

Well, then enjoy your day, I guess.

>Books that repeat the same points in the post above you?

You didn't take that as a suggestion that there are no more shortcuts to take?

Others can, but apparently you can't. It's like you're having a normal conversation with someone, then out of nowhere he tells you that regardless of whether you're a Muslim or not, the answer to your problems can be found in the Quran or in Islamic theology. It's a really clever way of sneaking your religion into a conversation and preaching it while pretending to be objective, if you are open to using such underhanded tricks to market your faith, then you have no right to criticize people who learn how to market themselves to women and to people in general.

>Also, it's vague and generic because it's supposed to apply to a multitude of cases.

We're trying to look good to women here. If you're willing to go into the specifics of bodybuilding, then you should also be willing to go into the specifics of love and dating instead of talking about everything else and avoiding the elephant in the room.

>Vague, generic, I bet you don't try to do half the things I listed. If you are, congratulations, you are on the right track, now stay on it and don't be distracted by looking for shortcuts.

You also have this Puritan mentality that the harder you work towards something (yourself), the more you are entitled to it (the opposite sex). This is a socialist mentality, pure labour is important, but not unless it meets demand.

>muh shortcuts

Let me put it in the simplest way possible - women are trophies for high-quality guys. The higher quality the guy is, the higher quality the girl he is able to get. You are not helping people increase their quality nor are you teaching people how to market the qualities that you mentioned are good for them. You are just preaching Puritan mentality that by being a nice guy, you will automatically be rewarded with good things by the powers at be and things like women will fall to you from the sky.

>Let me put it in the simplest way possible - women are trophies for high-quality guys. The higher quality the guy is, the higher quality the girl he is able to get.

Not necessarily. There are plenty of high-quality guys who are unable to get with high-quality girls for various reasons such as modern Western women being awful whores who will divorce rape you, and realizing that teenage girls are the highest quality girls but being unable to procure one because all the horrible thots made it illegal out of sheer jealousy of more desirable, younger waifus.

Hey guys I really want to become an anarcho-capitalist but I don't have any mental illnesses. Can you recommend me any methods to induce enough brain damage in me to take ancaps seriously that's relatively painless?

"beta uprising" and why the mainstream media is so focused on portraying school shooters as mindless non-humans who did it for absolutely no reason other than because they are crazy while simultaneously using this as anti-gun and 2nd amendment destroying propaganda.

I have noticed an ongoing theme to the school shootings in the usa; specifically the shootings that involve the shooter being a student who actually went to that school, how the mainstream media decides to report/USE it, and how the school systems seem to respond to it.

it always appears the same way.

>breaking news! serious bad happenings!

>shots fired at local school!

>suspense

>worry

>panic

>come on news! release more information!

>we regret to say that X amount of people are dead

>suspect is believed to be (evil bad person who did this for no reason's name)

I'm not saying that what the person did was right, it was very wrong indeed but follow me for a moment with this.

>and then endless reporting for months on why guns are bad and how that "this school is a gun free zone" sticker on the schools door TOTALLY stopped the shooter

>then a bunch of talk about how the family was this or that and how the shooter had mental issues (but lets leave out that they were all high on prescription drugs that increase the risk of suicidal thoughts and destroy learning! thanks doc!) https://archive.is/L9opF

you sound exactly like the news who wants everyone yo just believe that these people randomly decided to just shoot up schools for no reason at all. like they just woke up one day and had their breakfast and said "HURR DURRR IMA DO THIS TODAY"

>Mental illness and drug misuse are reasons. They just aren't the sympathetic, logically motivated reasons you want to believe in.

Drugged up losers who get drunk all the time don't always randomly decide to go shoot up schools. drug users are motivated by their need for more drugs so they do what they can to get more money and schools are not a good source of money for them. Your excuse is pathetic.

>Except the people actually investigating and researching these incidents in structurally valid way, don't forget that. Gonna say their point of view outranks yours, anonymous faggot.

Oh great an appeal to authority and education shill tactic, How am I not surprised? You have to remember that the people who run the education system are also in a position of authority and have an education but are obviously unqualified and undeserving of such a position proven by the fact that so many of these horrible events have taken place, abuse of the students and their stories, not even to mention the ones that lose their minds and commit murder. "oooh someone has a piece of paper the said they're important because they went to school so you should listen to them and your words and thoughts and ideas have no value!" That's not even worth a "nice try" from me.

Why the hell may I ask- are you so damn obsessed with this thread and convincing everyone in it that school shooters are nothing more than what the mainstream fake news media tells us they are by hammering it into our heads day after day for years and years? Why are you here?

>Reducto ad absurdum is a valid counterargument, unless it does not change the basic argument. You are drawing a line using your own feelings, saying that you will decide on the situation. This is not enough. Your liking or disliking it does not make it any different from another, scaled up or applied broader.

A reductio ad absurdum can sometimes be accepted. If the absurdity follows from first principles that you see as sound, then you must conclude that the absurdity isn't really an absurdity, and that the reductio ad absurdum actually wasn't one, for that matter.

>By your argument, he'd still be free if someone put a mine right where he wanted to step, but unfree the moment someone tackled him away so he wouldn't step on your mine. Your argument supports absurdities.

A better example would be if a sniper fired a bullet at him. Obviously, that would be a violation of his freedom, and a clear violation of the NAP. if you shoved the man out of the way within the second that it took for the bullet to reach him, you'd be violating his freedom. You would violate his freedom by protecting him from a far more serious violation of his freedom that would permanently take away his capacity for being free, as he'd be dead. (Assuming that he didn't want to be hit by a bullet. If he did, then I, too, would say you're very likely violating his freedom and not protecting it.)

I suppose that is not a clear contradiction, but it's nevertheless self-vitiating. It weakens your case.

>You are drawing a line using your own feelings, saying that you will decide on the situation.

No, I argued from my view of human nature. You constantly said it was arbitrary, but yPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>Well, i agree that i kinda failed at that. Though my points do stand. I'll explain it below.

>Doubt you do, because if you decide to go nihilist, chances are you're complacent to begin with.

I doubt it will do any good, as to get to certain morality you need to already have a moral belief, to build the system on it. Also, i've got more important things to do than read articles on theories already disregarded.

>Not really. I found it tedious, and I only engaged because I had a point to make.

Well, you do it for the sense of moral superiority, i kinda enjoyed it, as long as we both get what we wanted, we're good.

>That's as silly as saying that atheism is not a belief, when it's clearly a belief in the absence of something.

Well, that'll go in parts.

>Atheist believe there is no God

First, my theist(i assume?) friend, you've got to define what a god is, as even most theists cannot agree on that. You cannot believe in what you cannot pretend or define. Second, an atheist CAN agree with you on the existence of an omnipotent being, or at least agree on the possibility of it, taken aside the all-powerful part. Atheists simply do not see a reason to worship a (possible?) being on the basis of it being stronger that themselves, especially when there are so many of different gods "discovered" by humans.

>nihilists believe there is no objective morality

Not really. In a sense, any morality that has emerged out of whatever sick mind an individual has is objective, as it is present in real world. It can even be scientifically explored. What nihilists do not agree with, is that yours, or any other morality system is capable of describing the world, and not its bearers emotional state on the subject. It, again really comes to the definition of morality. If you think that it is an inherent trait of the world, and not a developedPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>Semantics. Not unimportant semantics, because people attribute factuality to enterprises labeled "science" and deride everything else as inconsequential navel gazing.

I do not get what your argument is. Mine is that modern science has reached such heights because of its strict rules and definitions, and this also explains why modern psychology and sociology is so controversial.

>At no point did I imply that my position is correct because I hold it, or because I hold it more or less dearly.

<Your argument was "it is not proper paternalism" in the first place. Is this defined by you liking it, or it following your moral code?

<The latter.

Here you go, pal.

>Egocentric because I make general claims about human nature and ethical principles?

Egocentric because you view yourself as an absolute authority making decisions about the subjects. You did say that you did not care about proof of your diagnose, as your opinion is not the one to be backed by something other than "i remember he acted differently before".

>I will hardly be a better judge than them

This again starts to go into the dirty pit of ethics, but yeah, you are very similar in your position to modern judicial system.

>Money is often overriding their ethical principles, but not always.

Ethics is arbitrary, resources are not. See modern business and politics, and you'll understand. This also scales up with the size of the company, as more resources come in play, and less sentimentalism is tolerated. Money is more likely to be made abusing ethics, really.

>If people are disgusted by animal cruelty, then kicking kittens to death in front of your store is not a good way to attract customers.

True, but in ancap they would not be able to do anything more than thPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

Whether is it accepted or not, it is a valid argument, no matter if you agree with it or not. There is no "proper" way of using it, especially where it is defined by compliance with your moral standards.

>A better example would be if a sniper fired a bullet at him.

You have no right to do the duty of a PMC without consent, again. You cannot enter his property, steal his things or whatever a PMC does. It is not a police, and you seem to misunderstand it. You can let him hire yourself, or offer your cervices, but until he does hire you, his protection includes protection from you.

>No, I argued from my view of human nature.

Whatever you call it, it does not change what it is. You never described your view for me to refute, so it is arbitrary, as it is only defined by its relation to you.

>At this point, you could've declared that I was an idiot, but not that I was arbitary.

Not really, even if a personality would be stagnant , which it is not, you was arguing about the forceful coercion of someone to it, or, rather your view of it, to justify which you pulled that "view on human nature" out, but it does not rally matter, as this is not the case. You just want to force your view of human personalty on others, and this view is just trying to support this wish by a pseudo scientific claim.

>Kek, if anything, this is my board. You're the one that has to leave. That, or put up with me.

Yeah, my bad, sorry i didn't notice that the board wan named /paternalism/, i might have turned wrong somewhere.

It's a non-answer that undermines the thought experiment with a cheap "take a third option" cheat. It's like playing "would you rather" with somebody. The interrogator is asking if you'd rather be morbidly obese for the rest of your life or be perfectly fit but paralyzed from the waist down, but you're doing the equivalent of going, "Uuuugh, NEITHER. Let me tell you about a GOOD choice!"

>You want a black and white solution to everything

Kind of here, yes. That would be appropriate within the framework of this discussion to adhere to a "yes or no" framework. Since we're supposed to be talking about whether or not something should exist or be done at all, that's the correct limitation to embrace.

>For something to be both true and false is incomprehensible to you.

It's incomprehensible period because it's illogical and autistic.

>You also want everything to be absolute

In the sense of responding to a question of whether or not something should or should not be, yes. That's the only rational way to address the premise.

>There can be no civilization if you're worried about someone stealing your money, kicking you out of your house or telling you what you can or can't do on your own property

Yeah that's why there are limits to it and we don't accept it happening all of the time for any reason whatsoever. It might be a calamity in your libertarian dream world, but in the real world civilization works just fine, and even optimally, when there are limits to what people are allowed to do with their property. Civilization hasn't and won't come to an end because we say the fact thPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

Whatever private justice system arises to replace the current government mandated one will determine cruelty to animal laws. I suspect the majority of people would be for something close to what most western societies have now and as such would vote with their wallets to get something similar.

>It's a non-answer that undermines the thought experiment with a cheap "take a third option" cheat.

Ahh, the magical third option, isn't that what natsocs do when discussing economics?

You're making me pick between a central government that forces people to punish goat fuckers or a central government that forces people to protect goat fuckers, I already told you that I don't want any central government forcing anything on me. It can't get any easier to understand than that. If it's my own personal preference that you're asking for, then I would shill for punishing goat fuckers.

>Kind of here, yes. That would be appropriate within the framework of this discussion to adhere to a "yes or no" framework. Since we're supposed to be talking about whether or not something should exist or be done at all, that's the correct limitation to embrace.

If your mind is so simple that it can only process Boolean logic then I can't help you at all here, there are good reasons to not want a large federal or (God forbid) a global government that forces one ideal on everyone.

>Honestly the enforcement of some basic morality safeguards civilization from degenerates who use muh rights as license to do absurdly dickish crap like abuse animals. Civilization doesn't exist without some degree of moral rectitude.

Morals exist because of civilization (property rights), not the other way round. If people aren't sure if what's theirs will still be theirs tomorrow morning or if they are afraid that everything they constantly worked for their whole lives could be taken away from them any moment then they will simply degenerate into animals who only live in the moment, what you'll get is Calhoun's mouse utopia. You can see this in modern Russia for example, where despite strict enforcement of morality by the government, people are still degenerate as fuck.

Property rights are vital to a moral society because without them people are forced to have a high time preference which causes a decivPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>You're making me pick between a central government that forces people to punish goat fuckers or a central government that forces people to protect goat fuckers

No, I'm asking you to pick between allowing or prohibiting animal abuse.

>If it's my own personal preference that you're asking for, then I would shill for punishing goat fuckers.

The last snake finally crosses the finishing line.

>If your mind is so simple that it can only process Boolean logic then I can't help you at all here

If your IQ is so low that you cannot take the hypothetical seriously to participate in a thought experiment, then I can't you at all here.

>Morals exist because of civilization (property rights), not the other way round.

How so?

> If people aren't sure if what's theirs will still be theirs tomorrow morning or if they are afraid that everything they constantly worked for their whole lives could be taken away from them any moment then they will simply degenerate into animals who only live in the moment

People will not implode into amoral anarchy because you can't slap your dog whenever you want, bud. It's just not gonna happen.

>You can see this in modern Russia

And see the opposite in Singapore. So what?

>when you give a whole country to a centralized totalitarian government, you can be sure that it won't have your personal favourite combination of rules and laws that you totally agree with.

No, I'm pretty sure I can have a government that doesn't outlaw criticism of black people and putsPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

According to Robert Kiyosaki, a good measure of how wealthy you are is how long you're able to live with your current funds if you quit your job today. Does this mean most first-worlders who work and depend on wages for their survival are objectively poorer than African farmers who live off their own land?

>many are only capable of providing basic market services like flipping burgers which pay very little

>many people want to live in hip and trendy metropolitan areas like NYC which have huge costs of living

>currency inflation destroys what little amounts many Americans can actually afford to save

>there are others but those are the main ones

And to top it all off, the boomers, who grew up in the post war economic boom, have basically no savings because they are greedy pieces of shit who racked up huge government debt while saving very little since they expected the current generation to pay for their retirement.

America is still a country of huge opportunity if you want to get ahead, the problem is many of the well paying jobs require high IQ (eg engineering) or accepting a less than ideal lifestyle in the eyes of many young adults (eg underwater welding).

Another thing to consider is that interest rates have been artificially suppressed to near zero for years by the federal reserve eager to give an allowance to the financial class in the form of quantitative easing. There was even talk for awhile of actually making the interest rates NEGATIVE and causing the act of storing money in a bank to result in lost money all to encourage consumer spending.

Of course anybody should still be able to put 10% of what they get in a paycheck into a bank account for discipline and security but there isn't really the earnings incentive for putting money into a savings account like there used to be.

Is there any draw fags, that could change the nazi symbol in the middle to the flower of life symbol. I want a spiritual ancap flag. The pics are just for reference, just make it nice looking and make it blend together with the flag, add the snake around the flower of life for extra flare.